Vzw Ondersteuningsstructuur Bijzondere Jeugdzorg

Vzw Ondersteuningsstructuur Bijzondere Jeugdzorg  [email protected] -  www.osbj.be

Development of a self-reflective instrument for youth care workers focused on participation. (Summary) Kurt De Backer, OSBJ, vzw May 2006

1. What is it?

OSBJ is a support platform for private youth care organisations in Flanders (Belgium). We offer juridical and methodological support and information. Our main issues are participative justice (how to deal with young offenders) and participative care. Our target groups are home replacing organisations, organisations providing foster care, organisations providing family support,…. The Convention on Children’s Rights (CRC) is one of our main tools and is used as an ethical, normative and juridical framework for the support we deliver.

During training sessions it became clear that youth care workers meet with a lot of obstructions when trying to implement the pedagogical aspects of the CRC in their day to day practice. These difficulties range (according to the professionals) from the lack of motivation and capacities of youngsters, the relation between care workers and youngsters to organisational or societal obstacles.

It was clear that these obstacles could only be dealt with if the workers and the organisations adopted a self-reflective critical attitude towards their own actions, care processes and positions. During the training sessions we used a framework consisting of elements coming from different theories. A lot of participants pointed out the importance of the ‘support’ of their organisation in order to be able to make some change in their personal approaches.

C This was the reason we started a project called Djinn (genius in a bottle)1. In order to evaluate the e utility of our framework we coached five pilot-organisations which all agreed to critically evaluate their l day to day care. At their request we developed a self-reflective instrument to evaluate the practices, l structures and mission of their organisation based on four principles of the CRC: the best interest of e the child, parents as primary responsible, the evolving capacities of the child and the child being a b r participant of society. o e During the training sessions as well as during the pilot phase of Djinn we focused on participation. This r in answer to questions of youth care workers and because it is the main issue in our context when s trying to implement all aspects of the CRC. Considering children and youngsters as competent actors s in our society is a normative standard but is not always put into practice at this moment. t The protective reflex towards children is still very strong, especially in youth care.. r a 2. The project: DJINN a t 1 The project consists of two phases. In a first period (January 2005-March 2006) five youth care 6 organisations were being coached. They welcomed two staff members of OSBJ at six meetings. On 1 the first meeting expectations were clarified and goals were set for each organisation individually. The 0 other meetings were used for various reasons: the planning of actions, the training of staff, feedback 0 on the project or evaluation. This phase has resulted in a report containing a self-reflective instrument. 0 In a second phase ( April 2006 – December 2006) the report will be discussed with different groups of actors in order to evaluate the utility of the frameworks and instruments presented in it. This will result B in a tool for all youth care organisations in Flanders. r u s s 3. The framework e l Given the limited length of this article we cannot elaborate on the theoretical framework. We just 0 mention the general ideas and dilate upon some elements that were very useful during the project. 2 / 5

1 1 3 In our project the name Djinn is derived from Aladdins genie friend. We perceived it as a ‘positive’ . spirit following the ‘Disney’ culture. In international context this interpretation can vary. 1 1 5 . 1 0

– i n f o @ o s b j . b e C e l l e b r o e r s s t r a a t 1 6 1 0 0 0

B r u s s e l 0 2 / 5 1 3 . 1 5 . 1 0

i n f o @ OSBJ o Ondersteuningsstructuur Bijzondere Jeugdzorg s b The theoretical background that we used is based on the CRC and specifically on the four basic j principles mentioned before. Because of our focus on participation we also subscribe the general . paradigm of youth as social actors. b e 3.1. Participation as a process

” Participation is the process of sharing decisions which affect one’s life and the life of the community in which one lives. It’s the means by which a democracy is built and it’s a standard against which democracies should be measured. Participation is the fundamental right of citizenship.”(Hart, 1992, pg 5). Hart defines participation as a process. We have elaborated this process as a succession of phases: Dialogue with decisions, execution, feedback and reflection as a starting point for dialogue with decisions,…

Scheme 1: participation as a process

Reflection Reflection

DIALOGUE DIALOGUE

Feedback Feedback Listening Listening

Execution Execution Interpretation Interpretation

Decision Decision

Viewing participation as a process allows us to be respectful towards a growing and learning practice. It is also the key to our solution of some discussions: does participation equal learning or does it equal communication? In our view, participation is a process in itself and it can be a feature of other processes like for instance in ‘ participative care’. Both processes (participation and care) are equal. Participation is not a care instrument, nor a learning instrument. It is a feature...

3.2. Active citizenship

We use the theories of active citizenship to provide an answer to the question: what makes someone participate actively in his own environment? There we use the triple C model2 : Someone willing to participate has got to find a balance between three elements.

Scheme 2: three structuring dimensions of youth participation

Challenge

Participation

Connection Capacity

2 Stroobants, V., Celis, R., Snick, A & Wildemeersch, D. (2001). Actief burgerschap: een leerproces. Sociale interventie, (4),- 2 OSBJ Ondersteuningsstructuur Bijzondere Jeugdzorg

In the first place, there has got to be a question of ‘a challenge’ which incites to participate. This can be a personal or social theme to which the young person is attracted and to which he wants to devote himself. Secondly young people need to feel that they can have a grasp on the challenge and that they can make a difference through their efforts. Their ‘capacity’ to make a difference will to a great extent incite to participatory action. This capacity contains specific knowledge as well as experiences, skills, insights and strategies. Young people can only significantly take advantage of a challenge when they can use their skills. Finally young people have to feel ‘connected’ with and supported by humans, communities, ideas, movements, range of thoughts, organisation,… in order to work together on the challenge.

The difficulty is that the balance is very personal and often implicit. You need to talk about the elements in order to know what the child drives and where the balance is. This requires dialogue.

3.3. Developmental psychology

Every person develops in interaction with reality, thus creating new realities. Children do so too but they need developmental space: they have to get some freedom to fully develop their capacities, their personalities. Youth care often is an intervention by society that narrows down the developmental space if/because children and youngsters loose the feeling of being in control. But care eventually aims at widening that space. This is only possible when children en youngsters gain the feeling of being in control.

3.4. Life world perspective

The theory of Bronfenbrenner and Beck states that the lifeworld of children and youngsters is built up by ecological zones. These zones are described as concentric circles. They start at the ecological centre and extend over the ecological vicinity to the ecological periphery. As they grow up, children and youngsters gradually acquire these zones. We use this lifeworld perspective in order to define the subject matters of participatory processes. Participation is always about something. One of our assumptions is also that the interference of society constitutes a gap, a breach in the lifeworld. Being put under care (voluntarily or forced) is a major event in the lifeworld whereby people of the ecological periphery try to get into the ecological centre. Youth care workers call this ‘gaining confidence’. We stress the fact that in the dialogue this shocking event has to get a lot of attention in itself, being a prominent issue at the time of the intervention.

4. Result: an instrument

Four of the five projects requested an instrument to evaluate the participative content of their organisations. They wanted to be able to see how well they were doing and to define actions for further improvement. We derived this instrument from a Swiss research project on quality in residential settings (Wigger and Lustig, 2002) and adapted it to our needs.

In our instrument we discern seven developmental fields for an individual. Following the Swiss example we will call these developmental spaces ‘playing areas’ (spielraum). The hypothesis being that youngsters have got to participate in the marking out of these areas. The instrument is meant for teams of care workers. Translated to their world it can be discussed with children and youngsters. We would like to emphasize that the actions that might be the result of the use of the instrument need to be undertaken in association with the children/youngsters. We will describe the areas briefly to give an idea. It is a good suggestion to check with the participants what they experience as part of the playing area, each time a new area is subject of discussion. The description is not limitative. The areas may overlap, they are not always very distinctive. As in real life.

The seven playing areas are:

1. The physical surrounding, equipment and care area

Subjects in this area are infrastructure, care and equipment. Do youngsters have something to say about the infrastructure of the centres, the according of rooms, the food, general care and 3 OSBJ Ondersteuningsstructuur Bijzondere Jeugdzorg

services? Can they decide about computers, internet, television, Playstation and the agreements surrounding these?…

2. The learning, activity and experience area

This is the child’s space for individual development through learning, leisure and cooperation activities; do they have a voice in leisure activities, games, excursions, skill training programs, homework counseling, study sessions,…?

3. The private/intimate area

Every child needs a space of its own. This physical and moral place is the root of ‘privacy’. Can children and youngsters create such a space in care organisations? Can they do things without being supervised? Can they retreat freely to their own spaces? How close and near (figurative and literally) are the care workers? Can they store their own belongings?…

4. The social network area

In this area we consider the personal space in contacts with self-chosen friends, the family. Is there space to have private conversations? Can youngsters be alone? Can children decide on their own who they meet and what they do together? Is supervision always needed? What about sexuality?

5. The care area

In this area we look at the structuring elements of the care process. Do children and youngsters know why they are in care? Is there space for participation during the intake, the allocation of care, the reports and files, the goalsetting,….

6. The values and opinions of the organisation

Can participants influence the values and opinions of the organisation, the pedagogical framework? The way these are pronounced and visible? Do they know these values (how is homework organised and holidays? How are crisis situations managed? Can they participate in the organisational policy?

7. The society

This area has two sides: On the one hand it is about the participation in society: in school, in contacts with the police, other institutions… On the other hand it is about the implicit and explicit image of a care organisation as a social institute represents. Do they have the space to learn in practice how they can relate to society or its institutions? Do children and youngsters have anything to say about how the organisation deals with their teachers, schools, employers,…

The same four questions appear in each area:

1. Which rules, agreements, customs, cultural elements, organisational settings,… restrict or broaden this area according to you? 2. How large or small would the child or youngster estimate this area according to you? How large/small would they want it to be? 3. How important is participation in this area for you?

The fourth question is more of a statement: 4. As a care worker I can decide autonomously on my actions in this area. The last question is derived from the evidence that care workers have to have a large degree of individual autonomy in their actions towards the children or youngsters within a participative care.

4 OSBJ Ondersteuningsstructuur Bijzondere Jeugdzorg

A team can answer all the questions for each area or just take one area at the time. It is possible to answer the questions in small groups and thus prepare a joint meeting. In large organisations not every team has to deal with all aspects: the different results can be put together to get an analysis on organisational level.

The results and obstacles can be classified into four perspectives (see later §6) . This classification allows people to determine who is accountable for the desired break through. Thus pointing out the direction and range of methods to tackle the obstructions.

5. Results of the participating organisations

Four out of five organisations used the instrument within their team(s). This resulted in a variety of discussions and actions. Some organisations will use the instrument as a basic framework in their team. They stressed that the framework has given them a common vocabulary to talk about the participation of youngsters in the process of care. Other organisations add actions to this. They have seen that they were not maximally involving youngsters and thought about expanding the participation. For example: one team was moving towards another building and discussed the allocation of rooms within the team but not with the youngsters. They will do so now. Several teams will start client meetings or youth groups… The organisations pointed out small differences in their way of thinking. A home counseling organisation became aware that they were denied access to the youngsters in some families. They have now decided to take action when they encounter this problem in stead of accepting this. All of them stressed the value of the self-critical instrument.

In one organisation we didn’t work with the instrument but we directly went to the youngsters to ask them what they wanted to change about the participation. We set up a methodology for the care workers to enable them to get into a structural dialogue (spread out over three meetings of 50 minutes) with the youngsters. This resulted in changes in the approach of the teams that were involved in the project but it was less transferable to the other teams of the same organisation. This transfer was easier when using the instrument.

6. Further results: problems with participation in the youth care context

Using the framework we encountered several difficulties that were linked to the typical setting of youth care. Because there were a lot of them but also to encourage people to look at their own accountability we structured them in four categories. This allows us also to put the accountability and responsibility in the right place. Thus guaranteeing a critical look without always having to point a finger at the care workers who deserve to be treated with respect. Especially when they put themselves in the vulnerable position of self-reflective practitioner. In this article we only look at the more interesting obstacles.

6.1. Individual perspective

Care takers tend to stress the youngsters lack of motivation to engage themselves in the care process. This has to do with a different perspective on the balance in scheme 2. According to care workers the causes for the lack of motivation often lie in the connection element. In this way they tend to work intensively on the establishment of trust. This is often not the case with the youngsters. It is a question of balance. After self-reflection, using the balance triangle, care workers admit the discrepancy between agenda’s or needs. The care worker too often stresses his own agenda, thus minimising or ignoring the youngsters’ agenda. Furthermore the care workers are questioning the capacities of children and youngsters to be self- responsible, to take their lives in their own hands. Care workers underline the need of youngsters for structure as they are afraid of asking too much of them or giving them too much unstructured space. In these cases we always suggested the use of the balance triangle as a way to structure the dialogue between children and workers.

6.2. Relational perspective

The dialogue is a relational process. In this relation the values and cultural background of the care workers play a significant role. These values also have to be subject of the discussion. The relation needed in the participative care is not one of protection. It is more one of mediation, and through mediation finding a balance between provision, protection and participation. Because of historical reasons many care workers tend to protect youngsters from society. They put themselves between society and the youngsters in question. This way they don’t promote the participation rights of children. Example: A girl gets caught for riding on the bus without a ticket. The care institution pays the fine to the bus company and starts a process of recuperating the fine from the girl during the next months. Instead of mediating an agreement between the girl and the bus company. This way the institution does not take up any ‘strange’ accountability and stresses the responsibility of the girl herself.

6.3. Organisational perspective

In this perspective we would like to raise the issue of team decisions. It is very common in youth care that questions from youngsters and major decisions on the process are taken by teams and not by individuals. This means that in a participative process the youngster is heard in the decision but is not participating in the decision taking. Thus stressing the fact that he or she can not influence the decision. However this way of working often seems necessary, it is too much of a common approach to fit the standards of participative care. This way the autonomy of the individual care worker is important; individual workers need some decision space when a girl or a boy asks a question. They don’t have to run back to the team all the time. Afterwards they can be questioned and held responsible but they don’t always need cover of a team. This also applies to teams where there is no room for support or individual learning and were casework is the major part of the agenda.

6.4. Societal perspective

Because the intervention of youth care is a decision of civil servants (we call them consulents) or juvenile judges it’s clearly a societal matter. Participative care however urges a good understanding between care workers and the civil servants or the judges. There is a strong need for communication between them and it goes beyond transferring a file or a letter. Judges and consulents determine the boundaries of care. When those boundaries are too small the care worker will not be able to enlarge the developmental space of youngsters. The setting will be too strict. When this happens this has to be discussed between all parties involved. Example: a judge forbids a 17 year old girl to have contact with her boyfriend (because of his bad influence). The girl is very much in love and ignores this. Care workers have the obligation to signal every serious event to the consulent or the judge. The particular worker considers this a minor offense and does not want to jeopardise his good understanding with the girl. The girl is doing good in the institution…

6.5. Other obstacles

Some of the obstacles we encountered are not easy to categorize. They have to do with the specificity of the setting (ambulant or residential) or with coercion (obligation to step into care). We also dedicated a chapter to group meetings in our research report. They are often seen as the appropriate method for participation of youngsters. In a care situation however it is a method that needs lots of considering and preparation before it tends to be lasting and rewarding.

Feedback

You can also become a part of the project by giving your feedback on the instrument or this article. This address welcomes it all: [email protected]. Thank you kindly for your interest.

The author

Kurt De Backer (°1970) has several years of experience in participation projects with all kind of youngsters in various settings. At present he is a staff member of OSBJ and he is responsible for the fields: Participative care and implementation of the CRC.

Bibliography

De Vos, K.& Kabergs, J.L.(2005). Gedeelde en verdeelde grond in de jeugdhulpverlening. In Agora, 21 (3). Jongerenbegeleiding, Kortrijk.

Dreher, E. (2005). Entwicklungsbedürfnisse von fremduntergebrachten Kindern und Jugendlichen. Presentatie op het quality for children congress (juni 2005). Via www.quality4children.info.

Jans, M.(2002). Children and active citizenship: to a present day notion of child participation. Meise, onderzoekscentrum Kind en Samenleving.

Jans, M. & De Backer, K (2001). Jeugd(-werk) en maatschappelijke participatie. Elementen voor een praktijktheorie. Brussel, JeP!

Knorth. E.J., Van Den Bergh, PM, Verheij, F. (2002). Professionalisation and participation in child and youth care. Hampshire, Ashgate.

Lansdown, G. (2005).Can you hear me? The right of young children to participate in decisions affecting them. Working paper 36. Bernard van Leer Foundation. Den Haag, Nederland.

Masschelein, J.& Quaghebuer, K. (2005). Participation for better or for worse. In Journal of philosophy of education. (2005, 1) (p.51-65).

Mason,J. & Fattore, T.(eds.). (2005). Children taken seriously. In theory, policy and practice. London, Jessica Kingsley publishers.

Roose, R. & De Bie, M. (2003). From participative research to participative practice : a study in youth care. In Journal of Community & applied social psychology; (13), 475-485.

Sturzenhecker, B. (2005). Partizipation als Recht vom Kindern und Jugendliche. In Deutsche Jugend, 53. JG 2005, H. 6. pg 255 e.v.

Van Gils, J. (2001). Duel of duet; een toekomst voor kinderparticipatie. Mechelen, Bakermat.

Watzlawick, P. Beavin, J.H., Jackson, D.D. (1974). De pragmatische aspecten van de menselijke communicatie.Antwerpen, Bohn, Stafleu Van Loghum.

Wigger, A. & Lustig, S. (2002). Ist Lebensqualität in Heimen messbar? Bern. Edition Soziothek.